METRORail Uptown Line

[RedScare]

I really don't know where citykid gets the idea that these trains are a huge nuisance to drivers. As long as you don't actually drive down Main, they're barely noticeable.

Perhaps he has a better vantage point to observe these things than you, brian0123 and Highway6.

[AtticaFlinch]

Perhaps he has a better vantage point to observe these things than you, brian0123 and Highway6.

Good point. Who better to tell us how crappy the sytem is than someone who never has cause to encounter that system?

[Highway6]

Same here. I'm very rarely ever stopped by trains, and when I am, it's not as if it's a huge freight train with a hundred cars. The trains are only two cars long and take no time at all to pass. I really don't know where citykid gets the idea that these trains are a huge nuisance to drivers. As long as you don't actually drive down Main, they're barely noticeable.

That being said.. it is the Main St Line.. with parallel streets running either side, a block away. Nobody actually has to drive on Main St.

Post Oak will be more dicey, and in the opinion of someone who has lived both areas of town, Post Oak has much more vehicular traffic.

While I don't share citykids "submerge or elevate the whole thing or it isn't really urban transit" mentality... I am curious to see the details of the Westheimer and San Felipe intersections and would prefer grade separation there.

We submerge streets at busy intersections all the time. We should model it just like Allen Parkway @ Montrose.

Post Oak and rail go at grade. Westheimer thru traffic gets submerged in the middle while the outside lanes handle the turns to Post Oak.

For the rest of the line.. i don't see at-grade as a problem.

The above solution.. I would want to see regardless of adding a train to the equation. Its a horrible intersection for vehicles alone, esp. this time time of year.

We improve busy intersections all the time by submerging thru-traffic .... tearing up the intersection to add rail just seems like a good excuse to improve the vehicular flow as well.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Highway6

[Highway6]

Was Fannin at Holcomb submerged pre-rail ?

Edited December 16, 2009 by Highway6

[RedScare]

We submerge streets at busy intersections all the time. We should model it just like Allen Parkway @ Montrose.

Post Oak and rail go at grade. Westheimer thru traffic gets submerged in the middle while the outside lanes handle the turns to Post Oak.

For the rest of the line.. i don't see at-grade as a problem.

The above solution.. I would want to see regardless of adding a train to the equation. Its a horrible intersection for vehicles alone, esp. this time time of year.

We improve busy intersections all the time by submerging thru-traffic .... tearing up the intersection to add rail just seems like a good excuse to improve the vehicular flow as well.

Separating two streets at an intersection requires extra land and a long approach...two luxuries that the Westheimer/Post Oak intersection does not have. To achieve an acceptable angle of descent on the eastern leg of Westheimer, the underpass would have to begin at or beyond the Loop 610 intersection, wreaking all sorts of havoc. Also, you would need enough room in front of the underpasses to allow motorists to maneuver into the proper lanes. Further, you'd need a couple of lanes in the underpass, plus a couple at grade, PLUS the sidewalks on either side (you can't put the walls of the underpass right up against the road), plus the retaining walls and railings, making the resulting roadway much wider than is available in that intersection.

Underpasses work where there is a long leadup to the underpass. Examples are Allen Parkway, FM 1960 and Kuykehndahl. Westheimer, with 610 coming up does not work.

[ricco67]

Was Fannin at Holcomb submerged pre-rail ?

Yeah, its at least 10 yrs older than the main street one.

I think one of the smarter things Metro could do is build a multi-level garage with ground floor retail at the wheeler station, and maybe one other stop near the uptown line stop so people can have an option of avoiding the driving hell that is the Westheimer/Post oak intersection.

[Highway6]

Separating two streets at an intersection requires extra land and a long approach...two luxuries that the Westheimer/Post Oak intersection does not have. To achieve an acceptable angle of descent on the eastern leg of Westheimer, the underpass would have to begin at or beyond the Loop 610 intersection, wreaking all sorts of havoc. Also, you would need enough room in front of the underpasses to allow motorists to maneuver into the proper lanes. Further, you'd need a couple of lanes in the underpass, plus a couple at grade, PLUS the sidewalks on either side (you can't put the walls of the underpass right up against the road), plus the retaining walls and railings, making the resulting roadway much wider than is available in that intersection.

I don't think it's as nearly impossible as you do.

While I will give you that i forgot to consider run-up and merge space... the intersection has plenty of room for the actual run required to meet the depth needed.

Furthermore.. you could cut all the needed runs in half by instead of just submerging or elevating one of the streets involved, you submerge one street 1/2 the needed Rise, and elevate the other street 1/2 the needed Rise

As for street width needed, since when is Metro shy about using Eminent Domain to take bites of property where needed ?

If Westheimer is that impossible... Post Oak is not constricted by 610 and has the run distances needed.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Highway6

[RedScare]

I don't think its as impossible as you do.

While I will give you that i forgot to consider run-up and merge space... the intersection has plenty of room for the actual run required to meet the depth needed.

Furthermore.. you could cut all the needed runs in half by instead of just submerging or elevating one of the streets involved, you submerge one 1/2 the needed Rise, and elevate the other 1/2 the needed Rise

As for street width needed, since when is Metro shy about using Eminent Domain to take bites of property where needed ?

If Westheimer is that impossible... Post Oak is not constricted by 610 and has the run distances needed.

When the property needed is owned by the most powerful developers in the city.

I don't doubt that the subject has been broached in the past, and possibly during discussions of the Uptown Line. However, an underpass causes severe obstacles to access to the property closest to the underpass...i.e., The Galleria, also known as Houston's most valuable shopping mall, and Houston's biggest tourist attraction. If they don't want an underpass in front of their mall (and I am quite sure they would not), then it ain't getting built. Besides, this would be a State and/or City project, not METRO. METRO would only undertake a project like that if it were needed to get their tracks through the intersection.

EDIT: Actually, given that The Galleria has parking along Westheimer, that isn't the biggest problem. The bigger problem is the Ethan Allen store on the north side of the street. And, Post Oak would likely work better from an approach standpoint. However, it is still likely that the Galleria and Uptown people would not like it...even if they promised to gussy it up with hanging vines.

Edited December 16, 2009 by RedScare

[Highway6]

When the property needed is owned by the most powerful developers in the city.

I don't doubt that the subject has been broached in the past, and possibly during discussions of the Uptown Line. However, an underpass causes severe obstacles to access to the property closest to the underpass...i.e., The Galleria, also known as Houston's most valuable shopping mall, and Houston's biggest tourist attraction. If they don't want an underpass in front of their mall (and I am quite sure they would not), then it ain't getting built. Besides, this would be a State and/or City project, not METRO. METRO would only undertake a project like that if it were needed to get their tracks through the intersection.

That is a completely different argument... one that you may be right on... but one that you failed to mention in your last engineering-centric naysaying post.

Engineering-wise... run distance-wise... It can be done.

Edit:

Submerging Post Oak would make more sense... has more distance, less parking lot curb cuts to interfere with and there are redundant entries into the Ethan Allen parking lot and Container Store parking lot

Edited December 16, 2009 by Highway6

[RedScare]

Actually, engineering-wise, I still think a Westheimer underpass cannot be safely done, since there is inadequate approach length on the 610 side. The mere fact that the underpass itself could be squeezed in there does not mean it could be done, especially considering the fact that it would be expected to improve traffic, not worsen it.

[Highway6]

Actually, engineering-wise, I still think a Westheimer underpass cannot be safely done, since there is inadequate approach length on the 610 side. The mere fact that the underpass itself could be squeezed in there does not mean it could be done, especially considering the fact that it would be expected to improve traffic, not worsen it.

Red.. in your 10,000 post history.. have you ever admitting being wrong about anything?

As the comparison to Shepherd/Memorial shows.. the underpass itself would not be squeezed in there.

It would take up less than 2/3 of the allowable space between Post Oak and 610

To achieve an acceptable angle of descent on the eastern leg of Westheimer, the underpass would have to begin at or beyond the Loop 610 intersection, wreaking all sorts of havoc.

Just admit that part was very very wrong and I'll be happy.

[editor]

there is inadequate approach length on the 610 side.

[Citation Needed]

[ricco67]

Red.. in your 10,000 post history.. have you ever admitting being wrong about anything?

As the comparison to Shepherd/Memorial shows.. the underpass itself would not be squeezed in there.

It would take up less than 2/3 of the allowable space between Post Oak and 610

Just admit that part was very very wrong and I'll be happy.

Sorry to tell you this, but Red has a point.

Now assuming you put the tunnel within the space you say is adequate; how much room will there be left from the begining of the "incline" from the intersection of 610/Westhiemer? Maybe 20 feet? 50 feet?

Can you imagine the traffic from the southbound frontage road trying to find enough space to find a place to get into the lane they NEED to go in?

Now add to the fact that there are quite a fvew people that don't know the traffic flow to be able to make a snap decision like that?

The space that you think is more than enough would be a traffic engineer's nightmare.

Additionally, the lights on McCue and Sage have to be properly syched to allow the additional traffic that will be increased heading into those intersections.

[rsb320]

Yeah, its at least 10 yrs older than the main street one.

I don't understand - "The Main St one". I understood the question to be whether the sunken route at Fannin and Holcombe was added. It was not. The train takes the street route, which has been sunken for many years. Note: This underpass has flooded several times and that stops rail service. You have to bus it from TMC-TC to the next station (or opposite).

CH2 reports right now, that federal funding has been approved for engineering work on the U-Line.

Bring it!

[RedScare]

Red.. in your 10,000 post history.. have you ever admitting being wrong about anything?

As the comparison to Shepherd/Memorial shows.. the underpass itself would not be squeezed in there.

It would take up less than 2/3 of the allowable space between Post Oak and 610

Just admit that part was very very wrong and I'll be happy.

If all you are asking is if I agree that an underpass could be installed at that intersection...regardless whether it would improve traffic flow...yes, I admit that it could be installed there.

As for the post following yours, let me point out to the poster that the block just west of 610 is 585 feet long, according to HCAD. By comparing your photo and the HCAD lot lines, it is clear that over 350 feet of the block would be taken up by the underpass, leaving 235 feet or less for motorist to move into the correct lane to either go straight through the underpass or turn onto Post Oak. Likewise, those heading east have 235 feet to get into the proper lane to turn north on 610, south on 610, or proceed east on Westheimer. This applies to those in the underpass, as well as those on the upper level. Knowing all of this, I'd like the poster to explain how the 58,710 vehicles(according to this source) are going to accomplish this feat in that 235 feet across 10 lanes.

Edited December 17, 2009 by RedScare

[editor]

There are USDOT and likely TXDOT design standards for these sorts of things. For some random HAIFer to dismiss another person's ideas as not possible doesn't make sense unless that HAIFer demonstrates that those ideas fall outside the design and safety standards created by the responsible transportation agencies.

[KinkaidAlum]

Like most Bostonians, although I have given up life in Beantown after 18 years, I have a love/hate relationship with the Big Dig.

I love it because it extended the Mass Pike to Logan International Airport. I can get to the airport in 5 minutes now from my house. Before the Big Dig, it could take 30-45 minutes due to traffic.

I hate it because it now costs me $7.50 to re-enter the city from the airport if I drive and pick someome up. That's how much the damn toll is now for the Williams Tunnel.

I love it because it has reclaimed downtown from the elevated Freeway (I-93) and brought the North End back into the fabric of the town.

I hate it because the North End is now overrun with tourists who aren't afraid to go there anymore (they used to be afraid to walk under the freeway after dark... scary!).

I love it because there's new green space in the city.

I hate it because that green space wasn't utilized well ala Discovery Green and is just a place for connected developers to put up their overpriced NYC condo buildings that have lowered the demand for Boston's more traditional housing (Victorian bowfronts and Brownstones). As a one time owner of a traditional home, I didn't need any further hits to the value of my home!

I love it because it was supposed to reconnect downtown with the waterfront.

I hate it because private buildings like the Russia Wharf Tower, the InterContinental, etc... make John Q Public feel unwelcome along the waterfront.

I love it because the city does funtion better now with better transit options.

I hated it because when I reverse commuted on the MassPike (office in Framingham in MetroWest) from my home in downtown Boston, my daily toll charge more than TRIPLED during the time I worked in the burbs. It now costs $5.80 a day to drive on a FEDERAL INTERSTATE. That is the very definition of highway robbery in my book.

[Highway6]

If all you are asking is if I agree that an underpass could be installed at that intersection...regardless whether it would improve traffic flow...yes, I admit that it could be installed there.

Yes... regardless of anything else. You previously retorted that the "To achieve an acceptable angle of descent on the eastern leg of Westheimer, the underpass would have to begin at or beyond the Loop 610 intersection."

Thank you for now admitting that this previous statement was wrong.

As for approach distances. Neither of us are engineers. Engineers are pretty smart at finding solutions that you or I might not see.

I already suggested one solution that could cut the ramp distance needed in half. Maybe its an absurd idea. Hopefully Metro engineers have plenty ideas for how to tackle this intersection and integration with the freeway that involves submerged feeders, flyovers, who knows.

But for you to just generalize that it can't be done is absurd, esp considering you start off your argument with the above factually wrong statement.

Prediction...

Like most Bostonians, although I have given up life in Beantown after 18 years, I have a love/hate relationship with the Big Dig.

We are talking about the possibility of 500' of road underpass... that's it.

[RedScare]

There are USDOT and likely TXDOT design standards for these sorts of things. For some random HAIFer to dismiss another person's ideas as not possible doesn't make sense unless that HAIFer demonstrates that those ideas fall outside the design and safety standards created by the responsible transportation agencies.

Yes, there are standards. What doesn't make sense is to make a ramdom comment about standards without thinking about which direction those standards have gone in recent years. That direction is toward longer approaches, wider roads and shoulders, higher bridge clearances and longer radius turns. The current trend in TxDOT and US standards means that the 40 year old underpass that Highway6 used as the basis of his argument would NEVER pass muster today.

My "random" opinion is based on looking at the intersection, INCLUDING the massive intersection only 585 feet away, and all of the different lanes and turns within it. I also looked at some recent examples of TxDOT and Harris County built underpasses. These can be found on FM 1960 at I-45, SH 249, and most recently, Kuykendahl. Kutkendahl is actually a pretty good example to use. Here is a description of it...

http://renaissance1960.org/content/view/21/119/

Note that the construction extended .3 mile (1584 feet) south of the intersection and .4 mile (2112 feet) north of the intersection. They had to go this far out to re-merge the underpass lanes and the at-grade lanes back into the original 5 lane roadway. Now, if TxDOT decided that it needed 3,700 feet to fit a circa 2009 underpass into Kuykendahl, and I had just driven the underpass 21 days ago, seeing what they had done and why, why would I decide to suddenly agree with Highway6 that an underpass built to current standards would fit into a block 585 feet long?

And speaking of random, if you're going to randomly attack my posts with a weak 'citation needed', the least you could do is back up your own smack with your own citations.

[RedScare]

I just noticed something. The red area that you added to the Memorial Drive photo supposedly covering the area that is below grade doesn't even include all of the retaining wall. The wall extends out at least another 100 feet or so on either side. Why would you only include part of the below grade street when arguing that the ENTIRE underpass would fit?

I must amend my conclusion. Not only would an underpass built to 2009 standards not fit into that area, one built to 1960 standards would not either. The area depicted in red is less than a full underpass.

Wonder why no one randomly caught that?

Edited December 17, 2009 by RedScare

[Highway6]

Yes, there are standards. What doesn't make sense is to make a ramdom comment about standards without thinking about which direction those standards have gone in recent years. That direction is toward longer approaches, wider roads and shoulders, higher bridge clearances and longer radius turns. The current trend in TxDOT and US standards means that the 40 year old underpass that Highway6 used as the basis of his argument would NEVER pass muster today.

My "random" opinion is based on looking at the intersection, INCLUDING the massive intersection only 585 feet away, and all of the different lanes and turns within it. I also looked at some recent examples of TxDOT and Harris County built underpasses. These can be found on FM 1960 at I-45, SH 249, and most recently, Kuykendahl. Kutkendahl is actually a pretty good example to use. Here is a description of it...

You know what also doesn't make sense - comparing your suburban highway standards with an inner city street.

Kuykendahl is a terrible example. Intersections at 1960 and 249, even worse. Slope grading and minimum height requirements are dictated not only by street classification, but by design speed. So yes, a highway or FM with design speeds double that of Westheimer will of course require much more run.

[Highway6]

I just noticed something. The red area that you added to the Memorial Drive photo supposedly covering the area that is below grade doesn't even include all of the retaining wall. The wall extends out at least another 100 feet or so on either side. Why would you only include part of the below grade street when arguing that the ENTIRE underpass would fit?

It covers all the Eastbound (southern side) retaining walls ... note the shadows.

I'd already posted the photo before noticing they weren't equal on the northern side of the street.

I don't know why the retaining walls extend further on one side except that perhaps the Eastbound feeder access lanes are lower than the Westbound access lanes due to the gound sloping towards the bayou.

The red zone is accurate according to the shadow.. that shows the minimum run doable at that location.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Highway6

[RedScare]

It covers all the Eastbound (southern side) retaining walls ... note the shadows.

I'd already posted the photo before noticing they weren't equal on the northern side of the street.

I don't know why the retaining walls extend further on one side except that perhaps the Eastbound feeder access lanes are lower than the Westbound access lanes due to the gound sloping towards the bayou.

You know, you just happened to pick the underpass that I lived next to for 5 years. The depressed section is 600 feet or more. The curb separating the depressed mainlanes from the at-grade lanes runs for another 300 to 400 feet. The overall length is 1000 feet on each side...roughly twice as long as that Westheimer block.

So, not only are you using a 40 year old underpass to make your point, even THAT underpass would not fit in the space available on Westheimer. If you doubt me, look up the HCAD maps. Saint Thomas High School takes up 702 feet of frontage. It is in the 4400 block of Memorial. The Galleria is roughly the 4900-5000 block.

[Highway6]

You know, you just happened to pick the underpass that I lived next to for 5 years. The depressed section is 600 feet or more. The curb separating the depressed mainlanes from the at-grade lanes runs for another 300 to 400 feet. The overall length is 1000 feet on each side...roughly twice as long as that Westheimer block.

So, not only are you using a 40 year old underpass to make your point, even THAT underpass would not fit in the space available on Westheimer. If you doubt me, look up the HCAD maps. Saint Thomas High School takes up 702 feet of frontage. It is in the 4400 block of Memorial. The Galleria is roughly the 4900-5000 block.

Who cares about the distance the curb that separates the mainlaines from access lanes runs? That shouldnt be part of your equation.

Obviously if you have 300-400 of curb, and not retaining wall, then you are only separating them horizonatally, and not vertically.

I would think after living there for 5 years you would notice that there is zero height difference between the two until you get to the retaining wall.

That curb is there to prevent people exiting Bayou Park and St Thomas from jumping strait into the Memorial thru-traffic going 60 mph....

400 feet of curb. Irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm measuring maybe 350' of retaining wall West of Memorial on the N and S side.

I'm measuring about 400' of retaining wall East of Memorial on the S side.

I'm thorwing out the 600' of retaining wall on the NE side since a ) like the curb, was probably designed part due to access requirement of St. Thomas and b ) since "one of these things does not belong here" compared to the other 3 retaining walls.

St. Thomas takes up 700 ft of frontage? Great. Because the south retaining wall's shadow is obviously less than half of that.

Westheimer appears to be in the ballpark of 600' between Post Oak and 610 feeder. 350-400' of retaining wall would fit.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Highway6

[TheNiche]

I propose a solution (not that it matters) similar to what I proposed for the Harrisburg grade separation at the UP railroad tracks. Only the main lanes of Post Oak become an underpass, since the allowable % grade is higher for roads than for LRT tracks, which means that the submerged section can be shorter and that driveway accessibility issues are minimized. Cantilever the access roads from Post Oak that intersect with Westheimer over the outside edge of the Post Oak main lanes to conserve on ROW width at the intersection; to the extent that any ROW must be widened, widen to the east because it's politically expedient on account of that nobody of importance cares about Jamba Juice or surface parking lots. Elevate the LRT tracks along the centerline and cantilevered over the center of the of the Post Oak main lanes and above Westheimer in order to conserve on ROW width, to remove a vehicle with signal prioritization from what is already one of Houston's most congested intersections, and to allay concerns from people who give a crap about the <0.01% chance that flooding in the underpass will interrupt light rail service at any given moment of scheduled LRT operation.

Yes, an intersection like this is expensive, and it would no doubt require cooperation from entities other than METRO. I only think that they're appropriate for four places in the entire system: Post Oak @ Westheimer, Post Oak @ San Felipe, Richmond @ Kirby, and Richmond @ Shepherd.

LRT-only grade separations are appropriate IMO at numerous other intersections in the system, however for the record, I'd agree with Red that at-grade LRT is appropriate for the majority (>50%) of its alignment as measured by the foot. Clearly there is no need to elevate it along the vast uninterrupted stretches of abandoned freight rail ROW that parallel Westpark (except at major intersections, such as Chimney Rock), and clearly there is no need to elevate it anywhere along Fulton St. or Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., as two examples among many.

Balance must be sought with LRT implementation. We must reject myopic extreme between entirely elevating the system or pathetic METRO apologism. We deserve better. And in some places, bigger is better; in others, less is more.

[musicman]

I live in Midtown and drive across these tracks daily. Sure, you wait for it... but not nearly as long as you would if it were just another cross street. The light turns red, the train crosses, and it turns green. Simple, easy, and I spend less time at the light than I would if it was a typical road.

but there was no waiting before.

Was Fannin at Holcomb submerged pre-rail ?

seriously?

[RedScare]

I'm measuring maybe 350' of retaining wall West of Memorial on the N and S side.

I'm measuring about 400' of retaining wall East of Memorial on the S side.

I'm thorwing out the 600' of retaining wall on the NE side since a ) like the curb, was probably designed part due to access requirement of St. Thomas and b ) since "one of these things does not belong here" compared to the other 3 retaining walls.

St. Thomas takes up 700 ft of frontage? Great. Because the south retaining wall's shadow is obviously less than half of that.

Westheimer appears to be in the ballpark of 600' between Post Oak and 610 feeder. 350-400' of retaining wall would fit.

OK, for the purposes of this exercise, let's assume that TxDOT would forego a curb and let the cars run right into the retaining wall. According to HCAD, the block between Post Oak and the 610 feeder is 585 feet. Subtracting the 400 feet of retaining wall, we are left with 185 feet for traffic to enter Westheimer from the feeder and traffic to come from under 610 and enter the underpass or move to the at-grade lanes. Is it your opinion that traffic in the far left lanes can get to the at-grade lanes and traffic in the right lanes can get to the underpass lanes AT THE SAME TIME in that 185 foot space without causing gridlock? Can you point out any streets where something remotely similar to this maneuver occurs?

[musicman]

I don't think it's as nearly impossible as you do.

While I will give you that i forgot to consider run-up and merge space... the intersection has plenty of room for the actual run required to meet the depth needed.

Furthermore.. you could cut all the needed runs in half by instead of just submerging or elevating one of the streets involved, you submerge one street 1/2 the needed Rise, and elevate the other street 1/2 the needed Rise

As for street width needed, since when is Metro shy about using Eminent Domain to take bites of property where needed ?

If Westheimer is that impossible... Post Oak is not constricted by 610 and has the run distances needed.

why does the street you post end in the middle of a building?

[kdog08]

Balance must be sought with LRT implementation. We must reject myopic extreme between entirely elevating the system or pathetic METRO apologism. We deserve better. And in some places, bigger is better; in others, less is more.

Word.

[musicman]

CH2 reports right now, that federal funding has been approved for engineering work on the U-Line.

CH2 also reports the City has a balanced budget.